Chris Crawford wrote:
> I'd heard on the news, on NPR, that there was one outside Sacramento,
>
Ah yes, sigh. Do folks realize that Sacramento is the Capital of the
5-6th. biggest economy in the world? And that it has been, and is, in a
very protracted political battle over its budget and especially how
limited funds will be allocated.
Sure, those folks are deserving of compassion and help. But the specific
location of the tent city is almost certainly a matter of politics.
> California. The city was trying to find someplace to house all the homeless
> people there, many of whom were middle class people who had lost their jobs,
> then their homes and everything else. Remember that in California housing is
> so drastically overpriced
I'm sure that's what it looks like from where you are. From here, it
looks like the houses in places that make sense to live in are all full
of people. If they were overpriced, nobody would have bought them at
those prices. I have new neighbors who paid an amount for the house that
would undoubtedly make your eyes bug out. Sure, they could buy a mansion
in Ft Wayne for that. But the job tha allows them to make the house
payments is here, not there, and isn't going to be there in our lifetimes.
There are certainly a lot of houses going for a fraction of what they
were worth in some areas. The majority of them are in areas that
shouldn't have been developed in the first place, oversized, yet
shoddily built houses that were sold to folks who really couldn't afford
them on the basis of unrealistic mortgage terms. The whole business was
criminal, and not enough people will suffer for their part in it.
I think some of the blame still rests with people who were foolish
enough to to go along with the madness, making unrealistic commitments
far beyond their means with no savings or other fall back position.
Me, I refinanced to pay off the friend who I bought my house from so
many years ago who wanted to get the remaining balance out of the loan
she was carrying. And I went with a low interest, five year fixed, then
adjustable rate loan. But I also calculated what the payments would be
on the maximum the rate it could go up to and determined that I could
make those payments - before signing up. So the rate went up for a year,
and I spent more interest than before. Now the rate is down below what
it started at.
Hmmm... Have we seen any news stories about folks who were prudent
enough to have the savings to weather a year or two of higher payments -
and who are now paying LESS than before the meltdown crashed interest
rates? Naw, good news doesn't raise ratings.
Still, it was an aberration that doesn't mean much in the overall Calif.
housing stock and market in the long run. With any luck, some of those
stupid developments will be bulldozed and go back to their proper use as
farmland.
Lots of them, by the way, are in the corridor between the SF area and
Sacramento. You can guess why the tent city ended up at the end of that
corridor that it did.
> that people can't keep the house unless they QUICKLY find a job paying nearly
> the same as the old job they lost.
>
Not to be a cynic, but how is that different from the situation of
anyone, anywhere, with monthly housing costs, who is improvident enough
not to have some rainy day money saved? Do people in Indiana who lose
their jobs and can't make their mortgage or rent payments get to stay on
for free?
For good or ill, and I take no stand at all, we are still a largely
non-socialist country. People who live their lives like that isn't true
often suffer the consequences.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|